But I hate wading through stuff over on Kos, and it isn't obvious to me how you can just get to a page with only Kos and not all those other characters. In particular, I'm not interested in the day to day polls and so forth. It's like an interoffice memo for somebody else's job.

120 comments:

I thought he was particularly good when he wrote "Screw them" in reference to the mutilated bodies of Americans hung from a bridge in Fallujah. Unlike Rush, this is a documented fact and why I think Kos is as despicable as the terrorists whose work he so enjoyed.

Then voters delivered 59 votes. And Harry Reid whined that he still couldn't do anything.

Wow. Pretty sad state of affairs when even Whorehouse Harry Reid is getting bitchslapped by Kos.

Actually do the Democrats do anything but whine? They were swept into the majority in 2006 on the promise of ending the war in Iraq. It's now 2 months short of 2010 and we're. still. there. Where art thou Cindy Sheehan? Oh that's right, under the bus with the rest of the nimrods who voted them in.

With a Democrat party like this, the GoP can afford to sit in the woods for awhile.

Harry Reid is despicable, disgusting, and deplorable. He has used his office to chill free speech and expression. Just ask Disney and Rush. Harry Reid is also corrupt and a racist. He was involved with organized crime as a member of the Nevada Gaming Commission.

He was involved with the Bank of Las Vegas. A bank run by Mormons- which decided to stop lending money to ethnics, Blacks, and Jews to start businesses in Las Vegas.

BTW, Harry Reid is a Mormon. During the presidential campaign all kinds of hatred was spewed regarding Mitt Romney's being a Mormon. No one dared to criticize Reid. Funny, isn't it?

"Republicans ran the Senate as if they owned the place, even when enjoying razor-thin majorities."

Which is why we're all basking in the bounty that is social security reform.

It's silly to say Republicans were any different. The only difference is the kinds of things that Reid is trying to push through.

For Kos, and the others, the war was a major partisan issue, but the fact was that military efforts always tend to have more bipartisan agreement. If the focus is on purely partisan approaches to substantive national problems there's going to be very strong opposition.

Frist knew better how to protect the reputation of Republican control by not pushing it to the limits and thus exposing how little power the majority has in asserting their absolute will.

Bill Frist never had 60 votes. Bill Frist never cared. Republicans ran the Senate as if they owned the place

Tell that to the dozens of judicial nominees and other nominees that sat there in limbo for months and years on end.

The fact is, when Republicans were in the majority, it was the DEMOCRATS who acted as if they owned the place.

As for Reid, unlike in prior Congresses (GOP majority and Dem majority alike), where they actually deliberated on legislation and tried to garner support by arguments based on reason, today there is no pretence at actual legislating. There is only the attempt at dictating. Reid's favorite argument for persuading others is, "shut the hell up, a**hole, and vote the way we tell you too."

We should be thankful that their inherent pettiness has turned against their own and that they have failed to do as much damage as they had first promised to do.

This is one of those things that makes folks on the right scratch their heads with bewilderment: The Dems can pass any damn piece of legislation they want without the Republicans. Health care reform? Cap & tax? Why the hell haven't they passed it and sent it over to the White House? They've got supermajorities in both freaking houses! They can do whatever the hell they want to.

And yet they don't.

Might they be realists? Might they understand the their jobs are on the line because, when it comes down to it, most Americans really don't like the looks of the legislation once they get a peek at the find print. And a peek is all it takes to grasp the oncoming horrors that they so desperately want to enact. It's a balancing act. On the one hand, principled behavior (jam it down the people's throats for their own good...) on their part. On the other hand, their jobs.

This reveals how little most of the Dems actually want to do that's any different from the Republican agenda...which makes sense, given they're employed by the same financial gangsters on Wall Street and in the corporate and bank boardrooms who bankroll the Republicans.

The Republicans, who openly espouse the "steal from the poor to give to the rich" philosophy of the great financial institutions and who find no shame in being openly in the pockets of these Capos of industry, are at liberty therefore to pursue their agenda vigorously. The Dems, on the other hand, in pretending to be an opposition party, must give lip service to the needs of ordinary citizens. In order to explain away their failure to effect the reforms they promise but barely intend to bring about, they rely on the cheap canard of "We don't have 60 votes." Alan Grayson, one of the rare admirable Dems in Congress, attacked this lie with force in a speech he presented a week or so back.

I do think Robert Cook is on to something: we have a political class in WA who cares only about being reelected and getting their share--the rhetoric differs, the players don't change very much because of gerrymandering into safe districts, and the end result is the tax payers are screwed.

Frist did things that were legitimately popular and consistent with what he and his party campaigned on. Reid is in an entirely different situation. Reid's party lied to get elected by claiming to be centrist. Now, he is left with the task of passing unpopular far left policies that are at odds with what his party claimed during the campaign.

Of course Kos is a dellusional nut who honestly thinks that leftists policies are popular. Or perhaps, Kos is just an authoritarian asshole who doens't care if they are popular, he wants them done and any who obects to it locked up or silenced. Either way, Kos doesn't live in reality. Reid does.

I'm no fan of many Republican policies; but if it takes Republicans to get rid of that sorry-ass Democratic leader Reid because Democrats are too myopic and, frankly, stupid, my hat is off to them. I will say thank you.

The 2006 election brought me great hope because Santorum was cleaned out of office. Maybe 2010 will be Reid's year.

Re: Reid, Kos is right in that it is kind of surprising how ineffective Reid is. It's like he's not even trying. Pelosi may be borderline incompetent and bad at vote-counting to boot, but she tries harder than any other Democratic national politician these days. Her personal imprint on the legislation passed this year is much, much heavier than Obama's or Reid's or really, anyone else's.

Last year, during the bailout debates, she bungled the whole thing so badly I thought the Democrats should depose her immediately and replace her with someone else, but I have to say I was wrong there. Reid is basically invisible, and Obama is off in FantasyLand giving gassy speeches with no relation to anything that's actually going on. Pelosi is the only Democratic leader who actually seems to have a clue and a plan these days.

Of course Kos is a dellusional nut who honestly thinks that leftists policies are popular..

Actually they are popular. That's what is so maddening to liberals. Republicans had no problems cramming two tax cuts through reconciliation, the 2nd in 2003 that received exactly 50 votes. The 50th deciding vote, Ben friggin Nelson.

Far be if from me to criticize Reid, but at some point the Democrats should actually, you know, govern like they said they would.

"Heckuva job, Brownie!" Obama, fulfilling a campaign promise to oversee the rebuilding of a devastated city, will spend a grand total of 4 hours in New Orleans. You know ... to supervise its reconstruction.

Or something.

By the way ... how's that Gitmo closing coming along?

I noticed Obama was issuing signing statements with every law he signs informing the Legislature that he won't enforce some laws. How's that unitary executive coming along?

I also noticed he renewed George W. Bush's Patriot Act allowing AT&T to continue spying on Americans' phone calls. You don't use a landline, do you? It's probably safer to use a cell!

Whatever you do, Don't Ask Obama about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He's screwing gays on that issue (with no KY, either). How do you like him now?

By the way, how's that Gitmo closing coming? Seems to be coming along about as good as the Chicago Olympics.

... Alan Grayson, one of the rare admirable Dems in Congress, attacked this lie with force in a speech he presented a week or so back.

Alan Grayson, like most of the lefties, is a class warfare demagogue. It would be interesting to see how tough Grayson and his friends would be if this were the 1830's and that kind of talk would get a response with dueling pistols.

A bank run by Mormons- which decided to stop lending money to ethnics, Blacks, and Jews to start businesses in Las Vegas.

I'm going to demand a citation for this claim, which seems to imply prejudice on the part of Mormons.

First, if you knew anything about Mormons, you'd know that they like Jews, that Jews tend to like Mormons, and that Jews and Mormons have very close relations in a number of areas, the least of which are businesses.

Second, nearly 40% of the Mormon church is Latino. Mormons clearly don't have any animosity towards Hispanics.

Most Mormon congregations (limited by policy to around 400 people) will have 10 or 20 or more gringos that are totally fluent in Spanish from having served their missions in the small villages and neighborhoods of South and Central America.

I do think Robert Cook is on to something: we have a political class in WA who cares only about being reelected and getting their share--the rhetoric differs, the players don't change very much because of gerrymandering into safe districts, and the end result is the tax payers are screwed.

I'm really tired of the "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties" rhetoric. Yes, both parties have far too many professional politicians. Both parties countenance far too much corruption and shady practices in the name of going along to get along. Etc. Etc.

However, with the election of this crew our foreign policy's done a 180. If you thought spending was out of control with Republicans in charge (recall the Democrats have been in charge of spending for close to 3 years now), then what do you think about spending now? If the Republicans were driving 10 MPH over the spending speed limit (bad enough when you think the limit should be reduced a good 15 MPH), then the Democrats have pressed the accelerator through the floor and thrown away the brakes. On both domestic and foreign policy questions there have been huge changes in both direction and degree (volume/velocity) since control switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.

You can credibly claim there's not much difference in terms of the way the two parties act (petty and not so petty corruption) when they're in office. What you can't credibly claim is that which party's in control doesn't make a difference in how the country is governed. If Bush and a Republican Congress were still in charge, several thousand more troops would have been sent to Afghanistan months ago. For good or ill, that's a difference that matters.

Kos and his ilk are starting to realize that obama is going to go down in flames. The Dems are going to get killed in 2010 and probably again in 2012 if the economy doesn't turn around. So, Kos has to have a scapegoat because whatever the problem it couldn't be that the left and their policies are completely wrong. It has to be the evil Dem politicians.

Kos is really a nasty human being. In another age, he might have been downright dangerous. But, fortuneatley, we dont' live in such an age and he has no balls anyway.

He is just writing the first draft of the post mortum on the 2010 election, it was all Harry Reid's fault.

Kos is pretty damn good at creating a synthesis of where things stand on an issue and where he thinks action should be applied going forward. But it's true that Daily Kos is too cluttered up-- it's more like a community center message board than a readable blog. Read just the recommended diaries.

Also, insofar as the mercenaries were running around in Fallujah, then got killed by an angry mob, which prompted the US to invade Fallujah before withdrawing again after the battle and suffering HUNDREDS of american casualties-- I can see why you could react emotionally against them, especially if you think they shouldn't be there, getting paid astronomical sums and indirectly creating a situation where much more poorly paid Marines were killed essentially to avenge their honor.

Kos is exactly what I hate in politics today. Blind adherence to winning and self-promotion regardless of the outcome effects of the position. Doesn't matter who dies or if the world or the country ends up better off.

"If Bush and a Republican Congress were still in charge, several thousand more troops would have been sent to Afghanistan months ago. For good or ill, that's a difference that matters."

Which would be all the more reason to cheer Bush's overdue departure from the scene, but we can sadly assume Obama will give in to the generals rather than uproot our forces entirely from the middle east and bring them home.

I agree there are differences between the two parties, faint though they have become. To the degree the differences are discernible, the Dems are preferable.

The Republicans, who openly espouse the "steal from the poor to give to the rich" philosophy

Umm...what exactly do the poor have to steal that the rich can use? I mean that sounds great when you're writing a remake of Robin Hood but here in the real world its quite the opposite.

For example when the Bush tax cuts went into effect, the rich got to keep more of THEIR money and so did the middle class which pays a decent chunk of taxes. The poor on the other hand, well they don't pay taxes. They DO continue to receive benefits and subsidies that are still paid by the middle class and the rich.

There's nothing wrong with that. Grayson recognizes there is class warfare in this country, and it's being waged by the rich against the poor, which most of you don't realize includes you.

Damn I wish the gubmit realized I was po when I needed money for college and they said ma and pa made too much money. I didn't realize pa made so much fucking money when he got promoted to sergeant on the po-lice department.

The only thing valuable that you can steal from the poor is their ability to be self-reliant along with the dignity and unlimited opportunity that provides.

Both parties do it, Republicans by ignorance ,but Democrats by design based on ignorance.

I would call myself rich. I have gotten there through, among other things, the hard work of poorer people. We all ended up richer and some of those poor are now richer than me. I find that nothing but wonderful and almost magic. If I was a modern Liberal, I would need to hate them now. In fact, we would all have to hate each other up the ladder. I'm not joining that mob.

Grayson went to Harvard for Chissakes. he made a bundle of loot via the eeeevil capitalist system and now he wants to take more of our money and give it to the laziest members of society.

Liberal Dems want to repeal the law of personal consequences and personal responsibility! Didn't finish college and stuck in a low-paying job? Don't fret the Dems will give you all kinds of free stuff!

"Damn I wish the gubmit realized I was po when I needed money for college and they said ma and pa made too much money. I didn't realize pa made so much fucking money when he got promoted to sergeant on the po-lice department."

That's why they could say "fuck you" to you; you're too poor for them to bother with. If you'd been a big bank or other corporation "too big to fail," they'd have killed themselves to convey as many taxpayer dollars to you as you claimed you needed. If you turned around six months later and paid yourself and your top employees millions in bonuses, they'd have been happy at the success of their largesse on your behalf.

One doesn't have to not finish college these days to be stuck in a low-paying job. Plenty of college grads and even people with advanced degrees are stuck in low-paying or no-paying jobs today, even as the work is transferred overseas where it is done for pennies on the dollar.

"That's why they could say "fuck you" to you; you're too poor for them to bother with. If you'd been a big bank or other corporation "too big to fail," they'd have killed themselves to convey as many taxpayer dollars to you as you claimed you needed. If you turned around six months later and paid yourself and your top employees millions in bonuses, they'd have been happy at the success of their largesse on your behalf."

That is right. And the sollution Cook is to give more power to the very people who robed the money from the poor via taxes and gave it to the failing bank. If they just had more power, they would really be enlightened and solve all our problems.

Keep digging Cook. There is a pony somewhere in that pile of horseshit you keep sholveling.

There's nothing wrong with that. Grayson recognizes there is class warfare in this country, and it's being waged by the rich against the poor, which most of you don't realize includes you.

Baloney.

Class warfare is waged by the leftists against the poor to make them think the Left will save them if they (the poor) support them. The so-called rich (70% of millionaires in this country are self-made) and the middle class are the necessary straw men.

If the William Ayers - John Dewey system of public education was ever replaced by a system that teaches people how to think, not what to think - the Democrat Party and the Left in general would all be in jail for crimes against humanity and the lower classes would find self-reliance works.

Sure they do. Considering all this nation's "taxes", payroll, state and local levies, and sales tax, the top 5% pay less than 40% of the taxes. Warren Buffett pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. This zombie talking point that the poor doesn't pay any taxes never seems to die though for whatever reason.

I'd support a universal govt check for everyone. But to pay for it, we would have to scrap most of the existing social programs and wealth re-distribution schemes. This, of course, would also eviscerate the standard DEMOCRAT PARTY platform in the eyes of the voters!

I was listening to the radio the other day, as I drove back down here from Montana, and someone had Bill Frist on their show. And, the guy is a class act. Like a number of other Republicans I really respect, he promised that he would serve two terms, and that is precisely what he did. He worked his way up to being one of the better heart surgeons in the country, saving any number of lives along the road, then went into politics to make a difference. But before being corrupted by the system, he left, and went back into medicine.

The problem, for me, is that this is something that Republicans tend to do a lot more than Democrats. In Colorado, we had a string of extremely competent, decent, Republicans as Senators, all retiring at the end of one or two terms, as they had promised when they originally ran. One of these is Hank Brown, who came back from the Senate and first turned the University of Northern Colorado around, then got brought in to clean up the University of Colorado. But, again, when he had done a lot there, and was offered the top job permanently, he again resigned, as he had originally promised.

In both parties, it seems to me that the politicians who stay, term after term, in Washington, D.C., all eventually get corrupted by the system. They may have come to D.C. idealistic. But within a couple of terms, they invariably have sold themselves out. The power is just too attractive.

Eh, I just gave you the facts which you just ignored. You do realize there are other "taxes" aside from federal income tax, right?

No you gave me bullshit. Buffet's secretary pays more 'effective' tax than he does? WTF does that mean garage? Medicare/SS tax is capped yes? Buffett still pays more. Assume Buffett buys more goods than his secretary, he pays more in sales tax (assuming NE has sales tax). Buffet pays more in state tax too. Cap gains? I bet Buffett pays more in those too than his secretary does too. I bet Buffett's property taxes are a wee bit higher too.

Hey if you want to limit my taxable obligations to payroll tax then sign me up.

You know you brought up a great point. There are a lot of taxes other than Federal income tax. A lot fucking more but that doesn't seem to stop liberals from wanting more, more, more taxes. Tell me garage, outside of national defense, is there any government spending program that doesn't give you guys a raging hard on?

wv- I shit you not-CONGO, whose currency is probably going to be worth more than ours by the time President Shortpants is done with it.

Which would be all the more reason to cheer Bush's overdue departure from the scene, but we can sadly assume Obama will give in to the generals rather than uproot our forces entirely from the middle east and bring them home.

It's true! Leftists really do live on a different planet. And on that planet, Afghanistan is in the Middle East.

Doesn't this just speak to the reality that the Democratic Party at present has more moderates (i.e. Blue Dogs) and therefore can't as easily pander to the wings. Yes, the Republicans have been used as a straw man when the real obstacle(s) have been the Blue Dogs.

Of course, if the mid-terms lead to a shift of these moderates to the Republican Party (not that the individuals themselves change but the moderate Dem loses to a moderate Republican.)then the Republicans will face similar issues.

Big tent leads to more conflict but a majority; party purity leads to less conflict within the loyal (or more likely, vocal) minority.

The wings are never happy because a)too many moderates in the party getting in the way OR b) the opposition controls the chamber. Frankly, I believe the wings prefer situation b)

With regard to Warren Buffet, the feds do allow you to pay more income tax if you really want to. He doesn't have to take any deductions either. Does Warren do either? If not, I guess he really isn't that concerned about his secretary. Until he does, he can shut the hell up about anyone else's taxes.

Pogo makes a great point when he reminds us that the lower earner gets way more in govt benefits like free day care, food stamps, college assistance, etc. Yet these dollars are never included in the Democrat liberal calculation of 'fairness'. That would foul up their meme.

With regard to Warren Buffet, the feds do allow you to pay more income tax if you really want to. He doesn't have to take any deductions either.

Well liberals like to wave Buffett around like some kind of mega rich progressive cause he wants to eliminate the estate tax. Well bully for him. I mean really, it's grand of him to volunteer not just his billions but everyone' else's as well. Oh wait, not everyone else has billions. Doesn't matter, pony up.

Again, that is the mentaliy of the liberals. It's not really your money, and even if you deign it to be your money, the gubmit can spend it more wisely than you could. I mean all you're going to do is give it to your lazy shiftless kids when the government can take it and give it to someone else's lazy shiftless kids.

Let me be clear, make no mistake, I'm all for a helping hand. Note I said helping hand and not handout. There is providing assistance to those who fall on hard times and then there is creating generational couch potatoes. Then there is simply spending money for the sake of it, political party notwithstanding. The problem is Congress has now devolved from a governing body into a 17 year old twat who demands mom and dad increase her Visa limit.

Buffet got rich in the life insurance business and in the venture capital business. Life insurance is exempt from estate taxes. So, what the really rich do is buy large universal life insurance policies from people like Buffett as a way of passing their estate. Worse still, Buffet has made a fortune buying family buinesses at rock bottom prices from heirs who couldn't afford to pay the estate taxes. Buffet got rich because of estate taxes. Now, liberals run around and laud him for wanting to keep the very taxes that made him rich in effect.

If we had a real media, versus a state run one, someone would ask Buffett about his position on exempting life insurance from estate taxes.

That is the problem & Dems don't want to see or recognize it. People don't have to stay poor all their life. Dems refuse to understand this so they have propped up whole neighborhoods of generational couch potatoes.

"Buffet got rich in the life insurance business and in the venture capital business. Life insurance is exempt from estate taxes. So, what the really rich do is buy large universal life insurance policies from people like Buffett as a way of passing their estate. Worse still, Buffet has made a fortune buying family buinesses at rock bottom prices from heirs who couldn't afford to pay the estate taxes. Buffet got rich because of estate taxes. Now, liberals run around and laud him for wanting to keep the very taxes that made him rich in effect."

Despite several factual errors, there's a kernel of truth here. First the errors: Life insurance is NOT exempt from ESTATE taxes. The death benefit is (in most cases) exempt from INCOME taxes. In addition, the cash build up within a cash value life insurance contract is not subject to a current income tax. The rich do not use life insurance as a way of passing their wealth to their heirs. Life insurance might be part of the solution in the case of a premature death, but it's seldom the primary planning tool. (To keep the life insurance outside of someone's taxable estate, the insurance is typically owned by a trust for the benefit of family. To make the premium payments, the rich person needs to fund the trust by making taxable gifts. If the same dollar value of gifts had been made to the trust in the form of stock in the rich person's business, the value transferred would most likely exceed the value of the life insurance death benefit -- the rate of return on the money invested in the business is typically much higher than the return on life insurance premiums.)

The kernel of truth? Buffett's gotten rich from an industry that has benefited from a competitive advantage created by Congress in the form of an income tax benefit. This allows the life insurance industry to attract capital at competitive rates and to offer their insureds a decent investment return on an after-tax basis.

Life insurance is effectively exempt from estate taxes. To avoid estate taxes on life insurance the policy must not 1) name the estate as a beneficiary and 2) the deceased must not possess "incidents of ownership" at the time of death. In other words the deceased must not have had any of the following powers at the time of death: a) right to change beneficiaries; b) right to assign the policy; c) right to cancel the policy; or d) the right pledge or borrow against the policy.

Unless you plan to write your trophy wife or idiot son out of your will some day, life insurance allows very rich people to avoid the estate tax.

"Life insurance is effectively exempt from estate taxes. To avoid estate taxes on life insurance the policy must not 1) name the estate as a beneficiary and 2) the deceased must not possess "incidents of ownership" at the time of death. In other words the deceased must not have had any of the following powers at the time of death: a) right to change beneficiaries; b) right to assign the policy; c) right to cancel the policy; or d) the right pledge or borrow against the policy."

John, I'm not sure it's worth debating this point or not. But, since I make my living primarily as an estate planner, what to most people may be a minor technicality seems to be a large issue to me. Yes, through proper planning, a life insurance policy on my life may be excluded from my taxable estate. But that doesn't make life insurance exempt from estate taxes -- virtually any of my assets can be placed outside my taxable estate through proper planning. If I don't own it at death, the asset's "exempt" from estate taxes. But that's not usually the way we use the term, exempt, is it? Usually when we say exempt from tax it means you can own it without having to pay tax -- like the income from a municipal bond is exempt from income tax. You get to collect the cash from the muni bond without paying tax. You can't own life insurance and not have it subject to estate tax.

Say I own $100,000 worth of IBM stock and a life insurance policy with a current worth of $100,000. If I were to give the stock to my son and the insurance policy to my daughter, neither asset would be in my taxable estate upon my death in 20 years. Now, depending on the face value of the life insurance policy and the rate of return on the IBM stock, one child might have more wealth upon my death than the other, but both the stock and the insurance would be outside my taxable estate. From this perspective, the insurance does not have an estate tax advantage over the IBM stock.

Note: Unlike virtually any other asset, if I were to give a life insurance policy to my child and die within three years, the policy would be included in my taxable estate under Sec. 2035. That's not true for gifts of real estate, cash, marketable securities, or artwork. With any of these assets, I could die the day after making the gift and the asset would be out of my estate. So, far from being exempt from estate taxes, life insurance is actually at a disadvantage from a pure estate tax perspective.

Please, no one take any of the above as an indication I'm not in favor of life insurance. That's not the case. I own it and use it for virtually all my clients. It's just not exempt from estate tax.

We are debating semantics here. My point still stands. Life insurance is a way to avoid estate taxes. Since it is very easy to set up a life insurance policy that will not pass through your estate, I would call that effectively exempt. You wouldn't. Both statements are reasonable. You are just being more precise and technical. And I am being more common sense about it.

If the Dems had majorities of actual voters supporting Obamacare and Cap & Tax, they would have no problem rounding up the necessary votes in the Senate and House to enact these measures tomorrow. The Dems do not even have pluralities.

Reid is being dishonest about the real reason he cannot enact this unpopular leftist agenda. The Dem balance of the Dem majority in both the House and the Senate won their seats by running center-right campaigns in Red states and districts. Thus, while the Dems have a nominal majority, the Dem left is really still only a minority in both the House and the Senate.

These Dems running in Red states and districts next year are justifiably worried about re-election of they vote for legislation a solid majority in their districts oppose, often passionately. Reid himself appears to be road kill next year in Nevada for governing from the left.

Thus, what good does it do Reid to have a nominal majority of 60 when only about 40 are on the left with him?

YES!It IS time for Milton Friedman:"Well first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow whose greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a…from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history; are where they have had capitalism and largely free-trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

Donahue: But it seems to reward, not virtue, as much as ability to manipulate the system.

Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think the Communist Commissar rewards virtue? Do you think a Hitler rewards virtue? Do you think, excuse me, if you’ll pardon me, do you think American Presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the bases of the virtue of the people appointed or on the bases of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels, who are going to organize society for us."

This is of course, true (owing to the fact that Buffet's main source of income is in capital gains).

It's also stunningly obvious that while Barack Obama ran on the premise that this fact is unfair he hasn't done a goddamned thing about it.

Where is Barack Obama's proposal to raise Warren Buffet's effective tax rate? When does Barack plan to make Buffet's effective tax rate equal that of his secretary?

There 'ain't one (surprise, surprise).

Obama hasn't proposed such a tax hike. On the other hand, I was watching CNN the other day and saw Barack Obama write out a welfare check and hand it to a millionaire.

Barack Obama wrote a $4,000 welfare check to millionaire former senator Bill Frist.

Frist did not use that welfare check to buy the hungry some food. He did nto use that welfare check to buy the poor some shelter. He used the welfare check to buy himself a shiny brand new car.

So, Garage, while you are correct that Warren Buffet's effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's maybe you care to explain to us why Barack Obama has been in office for almost a year and he hasn't done a fucking thing about that except hand out our welfare tax dollars to his rich friends.

"Sorry but the poor don't create the wealth. Wealth trickles down to the poor in the form of wages for employment."

The poor "create" the wealth through their labor, as no company can run, no factories can produce goods, no manufacturing or services can exist without workers. Why have labor strikes been successful in bringing about five day work weeks, 8 hour work days, paid sick days, safer work environments, etc.? Because capitalists--that is, real capitalists, those who own the capital, not just workers who "believe" in capitalism--find they could not produce goods or services, the source of their wealth, without the labor of those many many men and women.

Of course, capitalists today are happy to use technology and the ability to move with fleetness from place to place to find ever more abject persons who will happily work for lower and lower wages...when they cannot simply do away with human labor altogether and use robots and automated processes to produce their goods.

Cookie - if no rich person put his mind to it, no factory with all the automated processes would get built in the first place. Workers can't build if there are no drawings by engineers. First comes the design, then the physical labor. Which is why the order of income goes:

Of course...but without labor, no rich person's grand ideas can be realized.

Why was the antebellum South the home of such great wealth? Because labor didn't get to share in the fruits of their labor...being slaves and all.

In truth, wealth is created in unison by capital and labor working together, and thus each should share in the wealth. However, lacking regulatory compulsions, capital will always view labor as a drag on "their" profits, and will seek always to minimize the outlay of money to labor. Rather than viewing the cost of labor as in investment in their future profits, they view it as a necessary evil, to be begrudged and eliminated as ruthlessly as is practicable.

In this way, capitalists are parasites on not just the labor produced by their workers, but on their own future revenues. Like the parasite that infests a host and eats it away from the inside, leaving only a dead husk in the end, the more capital divests itself of workers, the fewer customers there will be to buy their goods and services. In the end, where will capital find their customers? (They can look for them in the unemployment lines, perhaps, where they will no longer be a source of revenue.)

Sure they do. Considering all this nation's "taxes", payroll, state and local levies, and sales tax, the top 5% pay less than 40% of the taxes.

Which doesn't actually address the point you're trying to make. What you're saying may be true, but that doesn't mean the poor pay the other 60%. And in fact they don't - EITC is structured such that the working poor recover what they paid in payroll taxes.

Also, I don't know how sales taxes work in other states, but where I live food and clothing, i.e., the biggest percentage of a poor person's purchasing budget, are exempt.

Alex, shame Telling Cook to think harder. Really, thinking is quite obviously hard to the point of near impossibility for the poor guy. Otherwise he wouldn't be tossing out old, stale, defeated Marxist bullcrap.

What next? Will you tell him to go play in traffic without his helmet?

For the Reasoning Challenged, "But the South wasn't the home of great wealth" as issued by the individual that posted it, is not an absolute statement, but a conclusion resulting from a comparison of the systems of Free Labor vs. Slave Labor. It is 100% accurate that free people, acting in their own self interest, produce more wealth across all relevant measures (absolute total, median, etc.), than do enslaved people. That reality is in direct contravention to the assertion that the wealth in the South was "Because labor didn't get to share in the fruits of their labor...being slaves and all."

Contemporary Liberals are to economics what strict creationists are to astrophysics. They look through the prism of their arbitrary value system rather than see the universe unfiltered. I freely admit to coming by this knowledge firsthand, having been one at one time(like a great many public-educated, pop culture-influenced Americans). This belief that slavery (and general criminal behavior)produces superior results is FUNDAMENTAL to Contemporary Liberalism in America, and underlies the general impetus of all their policies, which is to simply exchange the chains of servitude such that the "right people" are chained, rather than to remove them from everyone equally.